Provisions in Law Number 1 of 2023 on the Criminal Code (KUHP) are\nonce again facing a challenge at the Constitutional Court (MK). This\ntime, the petitioners are contesting Articles 603 and 604 of the KUHP,\ndeemed \u201ccatch-all\u201d clauses that could lead to criminalisation by law\nenforcement officials.<\/p>\n
The lawsuit was filed by a business actor and taxpayer currently\nembroiled in a corruption case at the Medan District Court. The\npetitioner views the articles as causing legal uncertainty and norm\nconflicts.<\/p>\n
Potential Norm Conflicts<\/p>\n
The petitioner\u2019s legal representative, Muhammad Deni Rambe, explained\nthat his client was accused of intervening with local officials\nregarding the manipulation of a company\u2019s building area reduction. This\nled to charges under corruption provisions.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe petitioner is an Indonesian citizen accused of intervening with\nofficials in the regional revenue body, thus charged with violating\nArticle 2 paragraph (1) of the Corruption Eradication Law,\u201d Deni stated\nduring the plenary hearing at the MK building in Jakarta on Tuesday\n(1\/4).<\/p>\n
In his arguments, the petitioner highlighted the phrases \u201cbenefiting\noneself or others or a corporation\u201d and \u201ccausing loss to state finances\nor the national economy\u201d contained in Articles 603 and 604 of the KUHP.\nThese phrases are considered open to multiple interpretations and prone\nto misuse.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe application of Articles 603 and 604 faces complex norm\nconflicts, both vertically and horizontally, and even has the potential\nto be misused as a tool for criminalisation,\u201d Deni said.<\/p>\n
Regulatory Asynchrony<\/p>\n
Furthermore, the petitioner assessed that there is a lack of\nsynchronisation between the new national KUHP and the existing\nCorruption Eradication Law (Tipikor). Deni exemplified the use of the\nelement \u201cbenefiting oneself,\u201d which often overlaps in legal practice in\nthe field.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe petitioner was found to have benefited himself, even though that\nelement is explicitly only contained in Article 3 of the Tipikor Law,\u201d\nhe said.<\/p>\n
The petitioner also criticised the shift in the concept of \u201ccausing\nloss to state finances,\u201d which is seen as creating uncertainty following\nprevious MK decisions. Therefore, the petitioner requests that the MK\ndeclare both articles contrary to the 1945 Constitution.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe petitioner requests that the Court declare Articles 603 and 604\nof the KUHP contrary to the 1945 Constitution and without binding legal\nforce,\u201d Deni emphasised.<\/p>\n
Response from Constitutional Court Justices<\/p>\n
In response to the petition, Constitutional Court Justice Adies Kadir\nreminded the petitioner to strengthen the argumentation, as the MK has\nrepeatedly issued decisions on similar norms.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe petitioner must thoroughly study the existing MK decisions and\nclearly explain the differences,\u201d Adies said.<\/p>\n
In agreement, Constitutional Court Justice Saldi Isra emphasised that\nthis petition should not get trapped in the principle of nebis in idem\nor repeated testing of the same material. He stressed that the MK\u2019s\nfocus is to test norms, not the concrete case being faced by the\npetitioner.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhat must be explained is why Articles 603 and 604 are contrary to\nthe 1945 Constitution, not the story of the concrete case anymore,\u201d\nSaldi clarified.<\/p>\n
He added that without new, stronger argumentation, it would be\ndifficult for the Court to change its legal stance. \u201cIf there is no\nstronger reason, it will be difficult for the Court to shift from\nprevious decisions,\u201d he concluded.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/constitutional-court-re-examines-new-criminal-code-provisions-on-catch-all-corruption-articles-1775026261", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }